Where have I misquoted anything. Alleged to do reading I can't back up? Post links as though they support my argument when they don't? Drop an angle when it become inconvenient, ignoring its dismantling, and then wait a page or two only to revive it as though it has never been addressed? Where have I boiled down a long, detailed, substantive rebuttal to one convenient sentence and then replied with a trite blurb?Likewise on the final shot wish, but ime people tend to accuse others precisely of what they themselves are guilty of.
Did somebody care whose idea it originally was? (straw man).My reading (in quotations no less by you) was and is on the topic of addition of white pixels to RGB OLED, an idea not LG's, because everyone who actually knows wtf they're talking about in the industry is aware it's a kludge, and the only way to produce OLED panels with workable yields.
Did someone say they had? (straw man #2)When LG says they found a way to go from 10% yields to 80, that's what they mean. They have not made any kind of major breakthroughs or reinvented the technology.
Source?Long story short, these panels will contain bad pixels galore, they're simply harder to detect with added white pixels which can and do function as little more than pixel-sized backlights.
Also, if LG's is "fake" and the only way to get decent yields, how is Samsung getting their yields and releasing a competing television without using "fake OLED?"
Oooo! Also, LCD would kill to have individually controlled pixel-sized backlights. Talk about full-grid local dimming! That sounds awesome!
So two companies use two different techniques and each says the other is superior. That's supposed to be news to me? By knowing that I'm officially "better read?" Should I also point out that the word "fake" (your quotes) isn't in what you linked. Samsung calls their version "True OLED". . .As a matter of fact, if God forbid you were slightly better read, you would have already known the charge of "fake" isn't mine but Samsung's.
Was it your intention to give us the impression that all your other claims are also backed up in that article? Because they aren't in any way. That article is actually quite neutral and does not say anything negative about WRGB OLED. As I mentioned, it doesn't even portray Samsung as calling it "fake". . . they don't even denigrate WRGB at all. The worst thing said about WRGB is that it isn't as "efficient" (which need not affect picture quality in any way).
Again, I would direct you to the stellar review of the 55" WRGB OLED TV. The proof is in the freakin' pudding. But because the evidence doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you dismiss it outright citing ridiculous, illogical reasons.
Don't forget the guy you praised as refreshingly informed and knowledgeable only to have him come in a few posts later to tell you how utterly ignorant you are. And there are plenty others (shall I count?).For whatever reason you're the only member I find myself in constant contention with, aside from Mr. 12 Days Now.
Pardon the vulgarity, but has it occurred to you that I'm just the only one who won't let your obvious bullshit go? Or that it makes it easier for others to just let your bullshit go when they already see someone else so effectively calling you out on all your bullshit?
Despite your vaunted "knowledge and experience" of the "industry" you repeatedly claim to have, it seems readily apparent to even the casual observer that you state only half-understood or poorly remembered things, and then feverishly engage google when challenged on them. . . only ever coming up with barely-if-at-all-relevant mass media reports that you then shoehorn into your argument unconvincingly while outright fabricating their contents in hopes that nobody will really check (as I have repeatedly demonstrated).Again I hope to be through defending myself, my knowledge and experience with someone who clearly doesn't know half as much about the industry and current state of affairs in it as I do.
But tell me, is it your vast "knowledge and experience" in the "industry" that has led you to completely embarrass yourself in the FW900 thread as well? Where all the resident (actual) experts are extremely puzzled by just about everything you say? It would appear that your vast knowledge and experience does not encompass a reasonable understanding of the concept of "gamut." Hey, at least I can cite something you said yesterday rather than something you wrote ten years ago (and I won't have to back off this one like you did).
I suppose we'll just have to overlook the fact that you have had pages of responses to your most recent questions and points (not just from me) but as usual, you're going to just ignore them (probably only to restate them later). That's the only thing that you can do at this point.
--H
Last edited: